In the immediate aftermath of MH370’s disappearance, California attorney (and noted birther) Orly Taitz filed a FOIA request with the National Security Agency to find out what the organization had about the missing plane in its files. Unsurprisingly, the NSA wouldn’t say; they wouldn’t even confirm that they had a file at all. As grounds, they claimed that “FOIA does not apply to matters that are specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign relations…”
The NSA’s response presents an interesting logical puzzle. If the NSA doesn’t have any material relating to MH370, then surely it would not violate national defense or foreign relations to say so. So presumably the NSA does have such material. Yet in response to Taitz’s inquiry they specifically emphasize that they might not. While it’s hard to say for sure which is the case, it sure smells like the NSA has something they don’t want to talk about. (“Typically when the government does not have any records, it would respond to FOIA request attesting that there are no records in question,” Taitz writes.) If I had to guess, I’d hazard that it might have to do with the radar and signal-detection capabilities of the US and its allies in the area where MH370 disappeared.
In the spirit of Taitz’s inquiry, I recently submitted my own FOIA request to the FBI to see what would turn up. Two weeks ago, I received a reply. The FBI, too, said it could not turn over material to me, stating:
“The material you requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(A). 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(A) exempts from disclosure:
records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information… could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings…”
You can see the whole letter I received from them here: Page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4.
Later in the same letter the FBI asserts that “this is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.” So again we run into the same logical conundrum as with Taitz’s NSA reply. If we assume that, in order for its contents to be categorized as non-disclosable, the file had to exist, then I take this to mean that the FBI has an investigation open into the hijacking of MH370. This by itself doesn’t necessarily mean that the plane was taken by third parties rather than the captain; the FBI was involved in the investigation of EgyptAir flight 990, which was ultimately deemed (by the US) a case of pilot suicide. The fact that they are considering enforcement proceedings, however, suggests that they believe that there are entities out there in the world against whom such proceedings could be brought.
Another plausible interpretation is that this is simply the octopus squirting more ink into our water.
Thank goodness for diligent, independent, crowd-sourced investigations. If we keep at it, I’m confident we will eventually root out the truth.
@jeffwise: It was widely reported that the FBI assisted Malaysia in reading the data on the computer that Shah used for his simulator. This included looking at the data that was deleted. There can be little doubt that there is an open FBI file on the disappearance of MH370.
@Jeff
Even Obama had a sound bite relative to FBI involvement.
From USA TODAY:
“In the United States, President Obama said Wednesday the hunt for the missing jet is a “top priority,” as the FBI joined the investigation into the mystery.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/19/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-relatives/6597201/
Factual information re: ongoing bathy surveying:
SW corner of newest patch: [40.0s, 85.8e], per Dr. R. Cole
SW intersection of ISAT Arc7 & ATSB fuel limit: [38.3s, 87.9e], per ATSB Oct.8 report*
* corroborated by CSIRO drift study start points: clearly ATSB’s fuel limit, and not, as implied, Arc7
Distance between these points: 142nmi
Distance MH370 was supposed to have flown fuel-exhausted PRIOR to reaching Arc7: 21nmi
Total post-fuel exhaustion required glide: 163nmi (or more, if right turn was gradual)
Required glide ratio (if at FL350 at time of fuel exhaustion): 28.3 to 1
EVEN IF PILOTED, this is not feasible.
Why do they search materially SW of the SW limit their own published fuel limit (and published ISAT data interpretation) imposes?
So when they see a need they are well able to release radar data?
http://www.smh.com.au/world/turkish-military-release-radar-image-tracking-russian-fighter-jet-over-turkish-territory-before-attack-20151124-gl751g.html#ixzz3sRfIW5XX
@Matty
The radar data I’ve seen so far is even worse than the Lido Hotel plots. Looks like they were made with MS Paint. Basically a sketch, and a poor one at that.
Shooting down the Russian jet was incredibly stupid IMO.
@DennisW did you see russian radar plot? It looks even worse (and I don’t believe either for that matter).
What is important is that russian jet fell in syrian territory…it doesn’t bode well for turkey.
@Brock relative to search area
The extension to the South is indicated on their search maps. My guess is they are “checking this box” while the weather is favorable. It is in the worst location relative to sea state.
Of course, these are the same people who chased pings at an impossible frequency offset, and told us that debris is most likely to be found in Indonesia. One has to wonder about the quality of their technical advisors. On the other hand it is always easier to critique the work of others than it is to do the work yourself.
@DennisW and @VictorI, Thanks for pointing out prior reports about the FBI’s role in the MH370 mystery. It may well be that invoking the possibility of enforcement action is pro-forma language to cover a broad range of circumstances in which a case is still open.
@Dennis: agree 100% they are searching both where and when they planned to. My point is that the plan itself carried them well beyond what their own published data sets as a hard SW limit for possible impact points. Which is why I made the point – strenuously – as soon as the plan was issued. “Let’s wait and see in what direction they actually do expand”, some said. It is a well-worn path: “let time do its work”…
I am hoping beyond hope that, like all the other misadventures along Arc7, this planned-and-now-actual logical gap is found to be caused by ONLY incompetence (or, as you say, a consequence of intense pressure). Had I received a simple “yeah, our bad – see here, we forgot to carry the 2” correspondence, I’d have closed this audit file months ago.
Unfortunately, my efforts to force transparency are being systematically and expertly deflected. That should tell you something.
@Brock
My feeling is that they simply started detailed mapping. We know almost everything about sky and Milky Way but almost nothing about ocean floor, yet.
FBI has no information unfortunately, they have (just like us) only the ping data.
There is no real valuable file on MH370, lets move on.
@IR1907, How do you know that?
@Brock, Hopefully in this forum we can hope to do better than merely wallow in our prejudices. Let’s discuss the data and the logic by which we draw our inferences. I personally like Russia as a country and am happy to have Russian friends, but when I look at the facts (or what I believe to be facts) about MH17 and MH370 I find that they seem to keep pointing to the Kremlin.
@jeffwise: could not agree more with the principle. But my research leaves me far less convinced than you that MH370 was an “outside job” (not sure why MH370 search would be so painstakingly soaked in all this ambiguity, deception and delay, if search leaders weren’t complicit in SOMETHING).
What say we set aside these petty squabbles, join forces, force full disclosure out of search leaders, and find out the actual, verifiable truth?
@Brock
People know more than what has been published, and I think it goes far beyond simple technical detail. I think the “plan” involving MH370 unraveled in unanticipated ways i.e. high level officials not being aware of the aircraft’s disappearance, high level officials simply not being available for discussions, high level officials unprepared to react to a rapidly unfolding ultimatum, people farther down in the chain of command reluctant to escalate promptly,… Shah simply ran out of time and fuel.
If I hijacked a US aircraft there is virtually no chance I (or my co-conspirators on the ground) could get Obama involved before I ran out of gas. Benghazi is a good example of how a crisis encounters delays and fumbling, and ultimately a bad outcome results. There are a handful of people who know what happened (not necessarily where the aircraft terminated mind you), and they are not talking.
It is not in their interest to find the aircraft. It is in their interest for people to get tired of looking for it, and move on.
JMO.
Dennis wrote:”Of course, these are the same people who chased pings at an impossible frequency offset, and told us that debris is most likely to be found in Indonesia. One has to wonder about the quality of their technical advisors.”
Check the sources on this–I think your recollection is incorrect. ATSB actually said that the debris most likely went west. As far as impossible frequency offset, the president of the company supplying the pingers stated that the low frequency was possible.
@Reed
You are the challenger. You provide the references if you think I am wrong, which I am not.
Anyone with any oscillator experience would know that the observed frequencies were impossible. When someone wants to know how a product works, the company president is the last person to ask (startups are an exception). It is like asking Dolan what BFO means.
http://www.ibtimes.com/flight-mh370-initial-debris-drift-model-wrongly-indicated-wreckage-may-wash-indonesia-2039282
@Jeff credibility of Bellingcat in question
BTW I am personaly in war – war against manipulation, war against scientology economic/power pseudo-religion neo-nazi cult, even to the fatal ends. This is the core (d)evil around in fact. And there are NO real issues between any superpowers, I am sure, so no worries. But as it is a war, its question what and if to share.
https://www.rt.com/news/317971-bellingcat-russia-syria-videos-geolocation/
@falken
I know what you mean. Another good example is the misinformation being spread about climate change. It has gotten so pervasive that many people believe it, and it may have a profoundly negative effect on the World’s economy.
@DennisW
From jacc-mh370-operational-search-update-2014-10-29.pdf:
“The ATSB continues to receive messages from members of the public who have found material washed up on the Australian coastline and think it may be wreckage or debris from MH370. The ATSB reviews all of this correspondence carefully, but drift modelling undertaken by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority has suggested that if there were any floating debris, it is far more likely to have travelled west, away from the coastline of Australia. It is possible that some materials may have drifted to the coastline of Indonesia and an alert was issued to Indonesia in August requesting that the authorities be alerted to any possible debris from the aircraft.”
Regarding pinger frequency:
http://conservativeread.com/search-for-flight-mh370-pings-heard-again-in-malaysia-jet-hunt-stoke-optimism/
Note the assertion by Dukane Seacom that a pinger in AF447 was tested after recovery and found to have a 34KHz frequency. Please consider that the pinger’s purpose is to make a very loud sound with minimal consumption of power. The transducer is itself part of the resonant circuit. The +/-1 KHz tolerence on the frequency specification spec should tell you that the operation and design goals of a pinger are not similar to a timing or frequency reference oscillator.
@Reed
The early incorrect designation of Indonesia as the most likely place for debris to be found is plastered all over the WEB, Dave. It was not corrected until late in 2014. You will have a hard time squirming out of that one.
Not only was the pinger frequency outside of reasonable physical limits, the distance over which the pings were detected was much greater than the theoretical range for a source stationary on the bottom of the ocean. It was an ATSB fumble plain and simple.
I get the sense that you work for the ATSB. I would not regard that as a resume stain, but it is not great either.
@DennisW
I work in Santa Clara and have no connection with ATSB or any governmental agency.
I gave you a direct quote from the ATSB, and your reply is that some other information was “plastered all over the web”? I would call that “squirming”. The fact is that the ATSB didn’t come close to saying that “debris is most likely to be found in Indonesia”.
BTW, here is the report by the BEA on the 34KHz frequency of the AF447 pinger. http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/cvr.ulb.examination.report.pdf
@Dave
I provided a link above, but here is another one from Reuters which is more respectable than the IBTimes. Seriously, there are many many references out there. Your reference is to a correction.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/05/us-malaysia-airlines-crash-oceanography-idUSKCN0QA03V20150805
I read about the pinger recovevered from AF447. While that establishes a precedent it stops well short of a physical explanation, and the detection range anomaly has never been addressed.
You also know that raw pinger data has never been released. No reason for that other than the embarrassment potential of one of us finding something grossly wrong with it in a few hours of looking. If you have nothing to hide, put the data out there.
Sorry to hear that you work in Santa Clara. I am ecstatic to be out of that s@@t hole.
@DennisW
Thanks for the link. Here’s the link to the actual August 4, 2015 statement by the ATSB:https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2015/mh370-drift-analysis.aspx
The October 2014 quote I provided is, to my belief, the first public statement made by the ATSB about the possiblity of debris in Indonesa, and I do not think it is a correction. Their initial (June 2014) incorrect model didn’t suggest that Indonesia was the most likely location for debris; instead it found Indonesia as the site of earliest landfall.
@ no one in particular
I kept a copy of most of the presentations I made over the course of my career. It was fun to go back and look at them from the perspective of a year or three. Often I would find humor and humility from looking at some of the things I believed in very sincerely at the time that were just plain silly from a current perspective. I recommend it as an exercise for everyone. So it is with this post. A copy-paste from a Wise article from 12-24-14. Just about a year ago – “Sense and Nonsense…”
Begin cut-paste//
In some ways, the search for MH370 is going exceedingly well this week. The agency leading the search in the Indian Ocean, the Australia Transport Safety Board (ATSB), just released more information concerning technical aspects of the signal data, which will allow the Independent Group and other amateur investigators to refine their analyses of the plane’s final trajectory. The ships scouring the seabed looking for wreckage continue to press forward with their monumental task, and have now completed more than 12,000 square kilometres of the planned search area. And the respected British aviation website, Flightglobal.com, has published a brand-new analysis by independent investigator Simon Hardy which reinforces the work of the ATSB and the IG.
End cut-paste//
Ah, giddy times indeed. The cognoscenti including Captain Hardy; of course, Cole and Ullich (whatever happened to the contrails) are in the mix had converged. The world was a happy place, and the champagne was on ice. The search was in the “right” place, and it was only a matter of time until the plane was found.
How things have changed. No surface debris attributable to the aircraft has been found there, no underwater discoveries, and the flaperon had the poor taste to turn up in a place that does not support the primary search area as a terminus (unless you believe CSIRO which I don’t).
The “we don’t need no stinking motive” crowd (the above mentioned group) is largely silent now. I would be too if I were them.
As I have said before, the flight dynamic assumptions made relative to the consensus search area will go down as one of the biggest mistake in the history of human analytics.
The “sense” is not looking so sensible anymore.
@Dave: all nine drift studies I’ve now reviewed show debris drifting first East, then arching counterclockwise around to the West. The ATSB directive you quote attempted to convey precisely the opposite impression: first West, then arching clockwise around to the East (how else would it wind up in Indonesia?).
Using the word “west” to suggest the ATSB “meant” Réunion all along has, I’m afraid, precisely zero merit. On Nov.23, Peter Foley stated “debris will start washing up on shores soon, most probably in Sumatra”.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/flight-mh370-debris-missing-jet-4679689
Most probably in Sumatra.
The ATSB has ADMITTED it was dead wrong, having “recently” (!) been apprised of an error in the GEMS study they say they used to form up this ridiculous directive. Study after study PROVES they were dead wrong. I’m struggling to understand why anyone would suggest otherwise.
@DennisW: Some of us that helped reconstruct the path ending in the SIO have consistently said that while the ATSB search area is a good place to start the investigation, there is no guarantee the plane will be found there, and other scenarios should be investigated in parallel. And as the search proceeds without a positive result, some of us understand that the probability of finding the plane in the search area is diminishing.
As for the silence, speaking for myself, I rarely post here because I see few new facts or thoughts surfacing. When I see one, I comment. What I do see are posters that consistently present opinions as facts and posters that want to re-visit inconclusive debates from months ago. That does not mean that there is general agreement with the more persistent posters.
In some ways, the IG has had the “misfortune” of making a prediction that is being tested, and therefore can be proven wrong. Unfounded excitement surrounding Hardy’s prediction will also become muted as his scenario is tested and proves to be incorrect.
One thing I am absolutely sure of is that there are multiple levels of deception surrounding this scenario that make it extremely difficult to separate the information, the misinformation, and the disinformation, as all are in the mix in abundant quantities.
@DennisW
Hi, as you know what I mean about the off-topic thing I mentioned, I feel like we ARE on the same side somewhat. OK, really kindly please, let me say something hopefully not stupid too. I agree with you that to some extent the “climate change issue” is capable to disrupt currents world economy. But this is the case only if you take it only as danger and not also as an opportunity. If you consider whats happening these days (and years) as something similar to world war, something which forces need to rebuild almost everything from former fossil-fuel powered to pure-electricity (based on base-load nuclear power and spikes covering by renewable wind and sun, together with smart-grid/autonomous/distributed sun powered homes) then the whole thing can assure economic growth for many tenths years in fact, as its not for sure something possible by flash revolution, but fast evolution during several tens years ahead, simply as something what happened in world after WWII. Be sure I read many sources, and 2 years ago, I had similar view on it as you, simply because not taking care of it as much, not knowing anything about it. But this all changed, as many other things in my mindset these days (and it was all triggered by MH370 case side-effects in fact). Whole world now agrees on climate-change, in fact, its now impossible to change from that change back already, it seems. I see it as advantage for future, not danger, althout of course it can be disrupting to some enterprises if (and only if) they will still deny it and dont act to change their business from fossil things too. Its question how it can be related to, say, OPEC members and if some defense against that isnt sourced there etc. Russia for example is facing consequences already in their currency, far more than bacause of any sanctions, not to mention the sanctions are in fact something which helps them, and I think, intentionally, to force rebuild of their own economy too from oil/gas only to something more advanced. And there is happening some “deglobalization” also, as till now cheap countries in Asia and Africa will start growth and raising salaries, so is more and more better to return outsourced businesses from there to home countries or at least do something with it. As a aftermath of current Daesh conflict, there will follow huge reconstruction help for the target countries too, simply lot of work and lot of safe growth with safe energy. And I count also nuclear power plants into it, as renewables alone cant provide everything important it seems. Base-load is on NPP and, you know, Kazachstan already was established as global nuclear fuel bank for developing countries without their own capabilities to make this fuel, and to prevent ANY dangerous manipulation with dangerous materials even for dirty-bombs or something even worse in terrorists hands… Yes, we can 🙂
@Victor
To say that you have been anything but a “beacon” throughout this endeavor would be a disservice. Likewise with other IG members.
My post was not intended to be critical of anyone’s efforts. It was intended to highlight a long standing philosophical dichotomy. MH370 is not a physics problem. It never was a physics problem. The Inmarsat data cannot be used to infer a terminus. What it can and should be used for is to eliminate candidate locations such as the Maldives and Bay of Bengal, and as a “sanity check” for possible locations derived by other means.
Early on I conferred with colleagues I interacted with for over 20 years developing a wide variety of precision navigation and guidance products – all people who do these sorts of analytics for a living (and a pretty good one at that). To a man their response (after a brief look at BTO and BFO) was that the Inmarsat data in an of itself could not be used to determine the aircraft resting place, and it was a waste of time to try. Of course, I knew that as well, but it did not prevent me from going forward. My “coin operated” colleagues would have none of it.
Certainly the “ground rules” in the Duncan days were very clear. No one can complain about ambiguous boundary conditions relative to how that collective effort was to be conducted. It is also true that the efforts constrained by those ground rules were extraordinarily good.
My point is the same now as it always has been. You cannot neglect cause and effect which trumps Occam’s Razor every time. Things happen for a reason. People do things for a reason. If you want to stick a pin in a map of the SIO there has to be an associated motive or theory of causality. Saying “that is the way pilots like to fly airplanes” simply does not cut it.
@DennisW: You know that in private emails I have encouraged you to further explore your CI scenario. However, the failure in the SIO to date is no vindication for any other theory. I’ve yet to hear a theory that in my opinion is “likely”. I won’t argue this point further because unless new evidence is introduced or somebody presents new insight, it has all been discussed before.
@falken
My beef with the climate change crowd simply has to do with bad science and “name calling”. There is not a whole lot of difference between an infidel and a “denier”. I view the whole lot of climate alarmists as crusaders, not scientists. Yourself included.
I agree that the emphasis on renewables is a good thing in and of itself regardless of climatic implications. However, I do not subscribe to the Malthusian view that we are on the precipice of no return. I am unwilling to commit to the economic fallout associated with dramatic changes to how we use and produce energy based on the evidence presented by climatologists.
@victor
Yes. We are on the same page. There really is nothing more to do than wait for additional info.
@VictorI
“However, the failure in the SIO to date is no vindication for any other theory.”
look at “CI” theory as a non-SIO one, so that everything north of current search area falls under it, if we consider BTO reliable data (as it certainly is), it becomes “binary” situation, it’s either in current search area and if not – the only possible area is north from it, being it 100, 500 or 1000 miles
if you know your shoes are in one of two boxes, if you don’t find them in the first one they have to be in the second, simple
@StevanG: No, it is not that simple. It should be obvious that there are many more possibilities than two. And I will repeat that I won’t argue this point further because unless new evidence is introduced or somebody presents new insight, it has all been discussed before. Based on the available evidence, you will not persuade me to abandon all other scenarios other than CI, nor will I persuade you to consider other scenarios, so further discussion is a waste of your time and mine. I will concede, however, that as time passes with no result in the current search zone, the possibility of a ditching near CI increases, but in my opinion, it is still far from likely.
@ anyone whom this may interest (Maldives MQ-9 Reaper Drone debris)
After Brock McEwan’s suggestion some weeks ago now, I tried to contact a few people about the US drone debris that washed ashore on Gili Lankanfushi, Maldives back in September. Even though all I got was a mere sentence and a paragraph, USCENTCOM did respond so I just wanted to share it here.
Q: Firstly, have you, or any other party, been able to ascertain if this debris is indeed from an American military drone? And if yes, have you been able to ascertain from where this debris originates (i.e. a previous drone crash)?
USCENTCOM response: “In reference to the debris we do not have anything to provide.”
Q: Secondly, if the above remains unanswerable do you know if there is, or will be, any investigation by USCENTCOM or any other concerned party to determine the origin of the debris?
USCENTCOM response: “Generally speaking, any mishap that involves a U.S. aircraft, including Remotely Piloted Aircraft such as the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper, is investigated to determine the cause and gather information that can be used to prevent future mishaps.”
Such a brief response that I’d almost forgotten about it. Then again it does have a passing relevance to the article so some may find it useful. The reply gives very little away, while possibly hinting at USCENTCOM/USAF being aware of the debris at the very least. No press releases have been issued either as far as I know. I also tried contacting the Maldivians but they haven’t replied back at all (quite disappointing as I had very different questions for them).
@ Matty Perth
Many weeks ago you asked a question about the flaperon’s serial numbers. 657BB was everywhere but the numbers that conclusively identified the flaperon were not.
Sorry I wasn’t ignoring your question but I haven’t had much time to look into it. I assume however that its part of the info that hasn’t been released by French investigators. Other posters are welcome to correct me if I’m wrong.
I too have just been reading along here and with no new evidence or news, don’t have any new ideas or much to contribute that has not already been gone over umpteen times. But where is Inmarsat in all of this now, do they still stand by their data or are they secretly re tweaking it. I agree the Inmarsat data, in and of itself, isn’t finding the plane but wasn’t the data coupled with certain “assumptions”? Why not change some of the assumptions and re tweak the data and see if that brings to light any better any of the 3 possible scenarios on the table or puts the terminus in another place on the 7th Arc?
As far as to the existence of an FBI file on MH370 I would say one definitely exists based upon their involvement with the simulator, whether or not it is active and open is another question. Has Miles O’Brien gotten anywhere with that yet?
And what of the fact that they are so hell bent that Zaharie was on comms at 17:19, doesn’t that stand to reason then that Fariq made the IGARI turn then and he was flying? So which of them flew across Malaysia, or neither one of them? Would they have transitioned once they were in the cruise portion of the flight, which they were at the IGARI/BTOD turnabout. If there was a technical emergency, who would be doing the flying and who would be going over a checklist?
@cheryl
The conduit through which information passes to the public is simply broken. Consider the following article about Captain Hardy’s theory by CBSNews – presumably a responsible reporting channel.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mh370-missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-370-plane-captain-simon-hardy/
The paragraph citing Dolan’s comments that a plane running out of fuel drops out of the sky and disintegrates is just plain wrong. Is there no “proofing” of material before publication? How are we to know what to believe when nonsense like this is the norm rather than the exception?
Sajid UK – It still strikes me as odd that the 657BB numbers got splashed everywhere while the really important ones that are said to have identified the flaperon conclusively were not. It was all very vague. We went from full blown media coverage to nothing. What happened there?
Like you I am also still perplexed by the drone debris showing up in the Maldives but there is not high levels of accountability there.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3337078/David-Cameron-Fighting-evil-corruption-key-global-security.html
@Dennis: you wrote: “the conduit through which information passes to the public is simply broken.”
Well said; it certainly is.
By design, it would seem.
@Brock
No doubt there is some cloaking going on relative to information flow. In the case of the press, I think it is simply ignorance (poor understanding of the facts), laziness (lack of fact checking and inability to do fact checking), and the desire to just get something out there.
My biggest disappointment is that there is no pressure being applied by the press to the parties involved to provide greater and more accurate disclosure. Where is the challenge to authority that I have come to respect in the past?
I really do think the ATSB has been sincere in their search efforts and disclosures. I tend to think of them as a victim (a victim of the Malays, the French, and the SSWG) rather than as someone who is part of the problem. I could certainly be wrong about that, since I have always had a strong positive bias toward the Aussies.
@DennisW
Whether the legal requirements for accountability from pertaining agencies have yet been breached, the lack of professional decorum is unabated. Respect for authority is most effectively earned not entitled, but apparently the MH370 contingent didn’t get the memo. Having used “contact us” protocol to various agencies with an innocuous request (will you release a report within the year?), other than the ATSB I have never received even an automated response of acknowledgement. Each ATSB response is non-standardized, courteous and informative. Gov’t agency or not, how perplexing that complete disregard of communication requests is even possible. Like you, I see their role as victim
Sajid UK said “ It still strikes me as odd that the 657BB numbers got splashed everywhere while the really important ones that are said to have identified the flaperon conclusively were not. It was all very vague. We went from full blown media coverage to nothing. What happened there?”
A flaperon was found, pictures were released and a Boeing number was visible. This indicated the item was from a 777.
The flaperon was then taken to France for forensic examination and investigation. With examination and confirming documentation, It was determined to have definitely come from MRO. Standard Operating Procedure. Media coverage went to nothing due to the authorities keeping information to themselves.
Which leads me onto my controversial commentary:
What we have learned to date is a privilege. SOP for any investigation is to keep cards close to ones chest. Failure to do so can have an adverse effect on the outcome. This occurs both within air accident investigation as it does in other areas of law enforcement. In regards to air accident investigations, we are lucky that we have interim reports if a final is not completed in time. The sole reason for that document is safety. At this stage, we, the public, do not know if MH370 was safety related or nefarious intent.
We may get leaks and snippets along the way – take meterojet as the latest example. These are the privilege I talk about. One has to understand that a “meddling” member of the public, requesting information from a body of an ongoing investigation is most likely going to be met with negativity/refusal. I think some of the information released by ATSB and others to date has been unprecedented. Then again, MH370 is unprecedented. They have a job to do and supplying information to the public is not part of their charter for an ongoing investigation.
Unfortunately, public accountability comes once the investigation is complete, not during, and that of course means if there are no potential security issues attached. Lots of outs for any FOI request. Malaysia, ATSB, JACC, even the FBI etc are under no obligation to provide the public with release of detail unless it is safety related. That doesn’t help us or the NOK. You might not like it, but that’s the sav we have to suck.
Controversial: Yup, sorry about that, but it needed to be said. But don’t give up trying. The media will have more leverage than an individual. So where are they?
@ Brock: I’ve been meaning to ask, how is the FOI request to ATSB going?
@sharkcaver: The Aussies wasted as much time as the legislation allowed (two months), then – last Friday afternoon – AMSA sent me an email informing me that they didn’t really have what I was asking for. (Recall Ithe ATSB REFERRED me to AMSA for this request.) It was actually (surprise!) a technicality: I’d asked for the GEMS results in detail sufficient to trace the paths ending in Indonesia back to their source; the e-mail claims AMSA only ever received a summary report from GEMS, whose graphics were of insufficient resolution to facilitate tracking of individual paths.
I e-mailed back roughly eight minutes later, asking for a) just the report, then, if that’s all they had, and b) alacrity, given I first asked AMSA for this report eleven months, five agencies, and 20 e-mails ago. But it seems they sent their 21st foot-dragging e-mail to me just before heading off for the weekend.
I fully expect to be given the report very soon. But now the issue is one of negligence on the part of AMSA/ATSB: if they commissioned a study whose 2,000 start points covered the full length and breadth of the ATSB’s wide search area – and the results they received were not specified in detail sufficient to tell which corner of this continent-sized area was generating the day-123 shoreline hit – then the ATSB had to have been thoroughly uninterested in actually finding shoreline debris – because that’s the first question any reasonable person ought to have asked.
Throw it on the large and fetid pile of decision support underpinning the search for MH370 that has been suspiciously horrible.
I am convinced the clock is being run out deliberately – on the search, on accountability for its conduct, or both.
I am convinced the Aussies are actively helping to make this happen.
SharkCaver – “Media coverage went to nothing due to the authorities keeping information to themselves.”
That much we know alright but what’s the big deal really? As I’ve said many times, the 9/11 investigation was more open than this one. Safety related or nefarious…..why the secret squirrels? The public/NOK have been treated like mushrooms on this – kept in the dark and fed shit.
Malaysia (the state conducting the safety investigation) has announced in accordance with ICAO Annex 13 that it will publish an interim report at the next anniversary of the accident.
@Gysbreght: After requesting that Malaysia release the raw radar data and reply to my questions, their response on Oct 1, 2015, included the following statement:
“Please be assured that your queries are being studied carefully and will be addressed in our next report on 8th march 2016.”
We’ll see.
Brock, Victor, hats off to you both and hope some light is shed.
Matty said “That much we know alright but what’s the big deal really?”
Is an ongoing investigation. They only have to tell us what they want to tell us. Maybe the secret squirrel stuff is because they know something nefarious took place and its in their political interests for us not to know. Certainly makes more sense than withholding information from a safety related incident.
Not only is it likely the plane wont be found, but a final report and/or an admission on what really happened may end up sunk in the bowels of the SIO as well. We may never know.
@Sharkcaver
There is nothing related to MH370 in the SIO.
SharkCaver – we are on the same page pretty much.